|
| ▲ | I-M-S 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This will be weaponized by NIMBYs to further limit construction of housing and infrastructure. |
|
| ▲ | bloppe 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Feels like the primary concern was virtue signaling, with protecting trees being a close second |
|
| ▲ | boomboomsubban 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Cynically, to make a documentary and get articles written. None of the rules they mention seem that extreme, they're just wording it in an unusual way. |
|
| ▲ | kgwxd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Same nefarious reasons corporations were given "personhood". Is it illegal to "assult" trees now? If someone pisses on a tree, are they going to call in the SVU? The legal system isn't a toy. Trees, in the general sense, don't need extra laws, the ones that need protecting are already covered by property law. |
